On Tuesday, September 17, 2024, the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility recommended suspending an attorney for 90 days for violating ethical rules during two client representations.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of William S. Stancil,” with case no. 23-BD-014.
The charges cited District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a) & (b), 3.1, and 8.4(d).
William Stancil, who has been practicing law in the District for over 30 years focusing on family, civil, and landlord-tenant law, was found to have committed misconduct in his handling of a child custody case and wrongful eviction lawsuit. The Hearing Committee held a hearing on September 20, 2023, and produced a report detailing their findings of fact and conclusions of law.
In the first matter, Stancil represented Latoya Smith in an ongoing child custody dispute against her ex-husband Rodney Gaylor over their two children. The divorce decree from 2016 granted both parents joint custody under a scheduled visitation plan. However, disputes continued around the interpretation of the decree, leading the court to issue a clarification order in 2017.
When Gaylor notified Smith of his chosen two-week summer custody dates with the kids in 2021 as allowed in the original decree, Stancil filed an emergency motion requesting the court for some clarification. The court denied this and ordered the custody to proceed as scheduled, but Stancil advised Smith to deny court-ordered visitation rights to Mr. Gaylor. As a result, she denied Gaylor his court-ordered custody and was later held in contempt of court.
The second matter involved Stancil filing a complaint on behalf of Barbara Pittman alleging she was wrongfully evicted by her sister Jacqueline Williamson. However, court documents showed Pittman had been lawfully evicted over a year prior following landlord-tenant proceedings and an appeal. Despite being provided these documents by opposing counsel, Stancil did not dismiss the meritless claim.
The court ultimately dismissed the complaint and awarded the other party attorneys fees, finding Stancil pursued the matter in bad faith. Neither Stancil nor his client paid the judgment for over a year until a complaint was made with the disciplinary authorities.
Based on these two representations, the Hearing Committee concluded Stancil violated ethics rules around competence, frivolous claims, and interference with the administration of justice. They recommended he be suspended for 90 days before being allowed to practice again, contingent on proving his fitness.
The Board on Professional Responsibility has adopted this report and will now pass its recommendation to the D.C. Court of Appeals for final review and ruling.
The recommendation states:
“For the foregoing reasons, the Committee finds that Respondent violated Rules 1.1(a) & (b), 3.1, and 8.4(d), and should receive a sanction of 90-day suspension and a showing of fitness. We further recommend that the Respondent’s attention be directed to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, 14, and their effect on eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar R. XI, 16(c).”
According to avvo.com, Mr. Stancil acquired his law license in D.C. in 1983.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
